Yeah, right : Wind energy -- exemplified by these idle Spanish windmills -- and other "renewables" still can't supply the vast amounts of reliable power that advanced economies require. Photo: EPA

For “progressives,” few things are as virtuous as sac rifice. Especially if it’s some one else doing the sacrificing. Thus, in the wake of Japan’s nuclear crisis, you just know they’ll be calling for less nuke power and greater energy-conservation efforts (preferably, by you).

Oh, the glory of deprivation. It’s music to a monk’s ears: We’ll all have to make do with less!

This is progressives’ idea of “progress.” They’ve railed against every economically viable form of energy — coal, oil, natural gas. Now, post-Japan, they’ll be crossing atomic power off the list, too. Leaving . . . no viable energy options at all — besides conservation. (Wind, solar and biofuels aren’t truly “viable” yet, and have their own problems.)

Get set for calls to cut back — to turn off lights, buy energy-saving appliances, dry your laundry on a clothes line . . .

“If we want to secure our long-term prosperity,” Progressive-in-Chief Barack Obama said, “the way to do it is to gradually reduce demand” for energy. Conservation, he said, is a key part of this plan.

And mind you, that was lastweek — before the Japanese crisis made nukes the energy bete noire du jour.

The irony, of course, is that the conservation that progressives worship is the very antithesis of progress.

The invention of the light bulb and electrification of America — that was progress. Nuclear power itself marked a huge leap forward.

Americans figure out how to beat nature — not surrender to it. When a long-burning filament for an incandescent electric lamp proved elusive, Thomas Edison tested thousands of materials before finding a bamboo-derived strip that glowed for 1,200 hours. When President John Kennedy set the nation’s sights on the moon, Americans walked on it less than 10 years later.

Let’s be honest: You don’t grow an economy by cutting back. You don’t create jobs — and broader affluence — by telling employers to keep their lights and air conditioners off. You don’t boost the bottom line by having millions of office workers twiddle their thumbs while their power-saving computers boot up. (If there really are economic benefits to such policies, employers can choose them on their own.)

Maybe progressives call for such sacrifices because they think they won’t have to make them themselves. Remember the indulgences Al Gore was able to buy, freeing him from the carbon-footprint limits he insisted on for everyone else?

Indeed, the biggest losers in an energy-strapped economy are working men and women — not lofty progressive “visionaries” who dream of simpler, back-to-nature lifestyles.

Actually, less-is-more thinking permeates progressive thinking. These folks also oppose burning fossil fuels for energy, hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) to collect natural gas and a range of modern advances unrelated to energy — genetically modified food, for example, and various medicines. Their redistributive policies are meant to penalize the most productive Americans and reward the least.

In their world, production is twinned with evil materialism; the less produced, the more progressive a society. It’s pure “Alice in Wonderland.”

Yes, Japan’s ailing nukes highlight what appears to be a significant design problem: A reactor’s electric-powered cooling system is vulnerable to the elements — or, at least, to the once-in-centuries earthquake-tsunami combination. And the potential consequences are disastrous.

But that’s a technological hurdle to be overcome — not grounds to jettison nuclear power, along with all other energy, and live in a cave. Already, there are reports from the industry that newer reactors solve the problem by not relying on electric cooling systems.

Then again, progressives aren’t likely to want to know from such things. Progress, after all, is the last thing they want.